See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316849992

Design of an RC Aircraft

Article · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 26,845

4 authors, including:

Seth Kitchen Isaac Foster

Missouri University of Science and Technology Missouri University of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building a LCP Antenna View project

High Altitude Medium Endurance Solar Powered UAV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seth Kitchen on 11 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

University of Missouri Science and
Technology

AE2780: Introduction to Aerospace Design

Spirit in the Sky Report 2

Authors:
Bria Broils
Professor:
Isaac Foster
Dr. Warner Meeks
Seth Kitchen
Zach Mazzoni

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

May 11, 2017
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Step 1: Construct Fuselage With Landing Gear and Motor . 3
1.1.2 Step 2: Determine Available Thrust as a Function of For-
ward Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Step 3: Develop Conceptual Wing and Tail Designs . . . . . 3
1.1.4 Step 4: Estimate Aircraft Performance and Iterate Wing
and Tail Designs as Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.5 Step 5: Prepare Initial Weight and Balance Report, Examine
Aircraft Stability, Select Wing Location . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.6 Step 6: Develop and Test a Flight Simulation Model, Further
Iterate Design as Needed and Prepare Aircraft Drawings . . 4
1.1.7 Step 7: Construct Aircraft Wing and Empennage and Com-
plete Fuselage Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.8 Step 8: Conduct Wind Tunnel Drag Testing of the Motor-
Fuselage Combination, Update Estimated Aircraft Perfor-
mance Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.9 Step 9: Conduct Final Flight Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.10 Step 10: Critique of Finished Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Step 1: Construct Fuselage, Attach Landing Gear and Motor 6

2.1 Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Computerized Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Problems: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Step 2: Determine Available Thrust as a Function of Forward

Speed 8
3.1 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Method 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 Method 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6 Computer Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7 Propeller Selection: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Step 3: Develop Conceptual Wing and Tail Design 13

4.1 Preliminary Design Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3 Infinite Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1
 4.4 Finite Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5 Horizontal Surfaces: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6 Vertical Surfaces: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.7 Airfoil Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 Step 4: Estimate Aircraft Performance and Iterate Conceptual

Wing and Tail Design 17
5.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 Performance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6 Step 5: Prepare Initial Weight and Balance Report, Examine Sta-

bility of Wing-Fuselage Combination and Select Wing Location 20
6.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7 Step 6: Develop Flight Simulation Model, Make Design Changes

as Needed and Prepare Aircraft Drawings 22
7.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 Step 7: Construct Aircraft Wing & Empennage and Complete

the Fuselage 27

9 Step 8: Conduct Wind Tunnel Drag Testing of Motor-Fuselage

Assembly and Recalculate Aircraft Performance 30

10 Step 9: Conduct Final Flight Testing and Analyze Flight Test 33

A Equations 36

A Performance Data for 9”x6” 37

A MATLAB Code For Takeoff Distance 39

2
1 Introduction
1.1 Executive Summary
A remote controlled aircraft was designed, constructed, and tested for Aerospace
Engineering 2780: Introduction to Aerospace Design on the campus of Missouri
University of Science and Technology. The aircraft goals were to takeoff within
35 feet, be able to clear a 6 foot obstacle, and maintain flight for several laps
around a gymnasium. Calculations were made for base aircraft dimensions and
predictions for takeoff distance and distance to clear a 6 foot obstacle were made
using a Runge-Kutta fourth order computer program. The designed aircraft was
simulated in RealFlight simulation software to further improve dimensions such as
elevator and rudder area and polyhedral angle. The aircraft was built and finally
tested on May 1, 2017.

1.1.1 Step 1: Construct Fuselage With Landing Gear and Motor

This step consisted of assembling pre-made pieces into a basic fuselage. A 28” piece
of balsa wood was used to form the basic fuselage. A motor, landing gear assembly,
and tail skid were added along with velcro for attaching the electronics. The motor
mount was used as the datum for calculation moments and flight parameters.

1.1.2 Step 2: Determine Available Thrust as a Function of Forward

Speed
In this step, 3 different propeller sizes were tested to determine their thrust char-
acteristics. These propellers were the 8”x6”, the 9”x6”, and the 9”x3.8”. Two
methods of testing were used. The first method was experimental, involving the
use of a wind tunnel to record experimental data. The second method was ana-
lytical, using equations to predict the thrust characteristics. The 9”x6” propeller
was selected for this aircraft.

1.1.3 Step 3: Develop Conceptual Wing and Tail Designs

During this step, the overall design goals for the aircraft were decided. A wing
plan form area of 4 square ft and an aspect ratio of 6.25 were chosen resulting in a
stall speed of 12.95 ft/s using a lift coefficient of 1.2. Using this information, the
AG-35 airfoil was chosen.

3
1.1.4 Step 4: Estimate Aircraft Performance and Iterate Wing and
Tail Designs as Needed
Take off performance for the aircraft was estimated in MATLAB using the RK4
method. Excel spreadsheets were used to calculate additional performance char-
acteristics. The maximum angle of climb was found to be 20.5 degrees. Minimum
take off distance was predicted to be 35.7 ft. No major design changes were made
from steps 2 and 3.

1.1.5 Step 5: Prepare Initial Weight and Balance Report, Examine

Aircraft Stability, Select Wing Location
Using basic data from a previous semester, the longitudinal center of gravity for
the aircraft was determined. With those distances, the method of moments was
used to find the center of gravity. Then, using an excel spreadsheet, the static
margin was calculated for every reasonable wing leading edge distance. This was
done to determine the predicted wing location that met the requirements for the
aircraft.

1.1.6 Step 6: Develop and Test a Flight Simulation Model, Further

Iterate Design as Needed and Prepare Aircraft Drawings
Using RealFlight Software, different types of wing and tail surfaces were tested to
determine aircraft performance. Different wing loadings were tested to determine
flight performance properties such as maximum aircraft velocity in straight level
flight. The result of this data is found in Table 6.4. This data was used to deter-
mine the length of the wing center section and polyhedral angle. The polyhedral
angle was chosen to be 25 degrees. Further tests were done, varying the length of
center flat section, length and angle of polyhedral sections, areas of horizontal and
vertical surfaces, and percent of elevator and rudder surfaces.

1.1.7 Step 7: Construct Aircraft Wing and Empennage and Complete

Fuselage Construction
After the designs of the wing and tail surfaces had been finalized, AutoCAD was
used to create template drawings for the wing and tail surfaces. These drawings
were used as templates for construction. Following construction, MonoKote was
used to cover the surface, using a sealing iron and heat gun to adhere the MonoKote
to the constructed surfaces.

4
1.1.8 Step 8: Conduct Wind Tunnel Drag Testing of the Motor-Fuselage
Combination, Update Estimated Aircraft Performance Charac-
teristics
Once the fuselage was fully constructed, it was placed into a wind tunnel to deter-
mine its drag. This process was similar to step 2. The final location of the wing
was also determined using the method of moments with the completed aircraft.
The location selected was 11.5 inches from the datum to the leading edge without
a payload, and 10.5 inches with a payload.

1.1.9 Step 9: Conduct Final Flight Testing

Once the aircraft was fully constructed and all lab tests completed, the aircraft was
ready for flight testing. A performance prediction sheet was filled out and used to
evaluate the aircraft. Following a pre-flight checklist, the aircraft was assembled
and prepared for flight. During testing, the take off distance, take off distance
with 4oz payload, distance to clear a 6ft obstacle, and max velocity in straight and
level flight were tested and compared against the predicted values.

1.1.10 Step 10: Critique of Finished Aircraft

Flight testing demonstrated that the aircraft met and exceeded the design goals.
The aircraft was stable yet maneuverable, able to navigate the testing facility with
ease. The plane was able to take off in 21.4ft, considerably faster than predicted,
and was able to clear the 6 ft obstacle at the predicted distance of 42ft. With
the 4oz payload, the aircraft took off in 31.2 ft, again considerably faster than
predicted. The max velocity in straight and level flight was shown to be 30.3
ft/sec. This was slower than predicted, but could be due to the very short testing
distance. Overall, the aircraft met and exceeded expectations. It is formally
recommended that Redienhcs Corporation market this aircraft to those seeking an
airplane that is stable, maneuverable, and easy to control.

5
2 Step 1: Construct Fuselage, Attach Landing
Gear and Motor
2.1 Summary:
This step was comprised of attaching the landing wheels, structural trusses, and
motor to the fuselage. The landing struts were cut out of a stencil using a bandsaw,
glued together, and attached to the fuselage. To attach the wheels, a 2-part epoxy
was mixed and applied between the hubs and wheels after ensuring the wheels were
equidistant from the fuselage. As the epoxy dried, the wheels were spun to ensure
they did not fuse with the hubs. Oil was added during this process to ensure the
wheels would freely rotate.
Other tasks accomplished included attaching a BP A2204 Brushless Outrunner
Motor (83 W max) to the front of the fuselage and gluing on velcro strips where
the battery will be mounted. Finally, a landing skid was glued to the end of the
fuselage. The initial fuselage construction is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Initial Fuselage

2.2 Computerized Drawing

The computer drawing of the fuselage and landing gear is shown in Figure 2. The
dotted line is the datum line where measurements (i.e. moments) were taken from.

6
 Figure 2: Computerized Drawing of Fuselage and Landing Gear

2.3 Problems:
An error was made while assembling the landing gear assembly. The piece sliding
onto the the fuselage was constructed too wide which caused a gap between the
landing gear assembly and fuselage. It was decided that this would not cause a
problem structurally to the aircraft, nor would it affect its aerodynamics enough
to be relevant during flight.

7
3 Step 2: Determine Available Thrust as a Func-
tion of Forward Speed
3.1 Setup
To setup the experiment, an 8x6 propeller, BP A2204 brush-less Outrunner motor,
battery pack, and speed controller were put inside the test section of an 18” X 18”
subsonic wind tunnel. In addition, a pitot-tube was placed inside the test section
to measure the pressure of the wind tunnel.
Four people were needed to perform the experiment. One person controlled
airflow of the wind tunnel, one person recorded the thrust and velocity into Excel,
one person measured the propeller thrust, and one person measured wind tunnel
velocity.

3.2 Procedure
First, the person controlling the propeller let the propeller run for one minute
to normalize the electrical properties. Second, the person controlling the wind
tunnel increased the wind tunnel velocity in increments of 5 feet/second up to
50 feet/second. Third, the person measuring wind tunnel velocity called out ve-
locities, informing the person controlling the wind tunnel whether to increase or
decrease the speed. Finally, the person recording data entered the thrust and
velocity said by the other two people.

3.3 Method 1
The first method of determining available thrust was to analyze the experimental
data in excel. Based on wind tunnel velocity and measured propeller thrust, the
net thrust (lb), thrust regression equation(lb), motor power(ft · lb/sec, Watts),
battery power supplied (Watts), and system efficiency were calculated. The raw
data collected from the wind tunnel was plotted as data points and a regression
polynomial curve was added.
The equation came out to be

Thrust Available = (−3 · 10−5 ) · (V 2 ) − (0.0053 · V ) + 0.485 (1)

This was then used to determine the power available. The net thrust versus
tunnel velocity for the propeller tested (8”x6”) is shown in Figure 3.

8
 Figure 3: Net Thrust Vs. Tunnel Velocity for 8”x6”

3.4 Method 2
The available engine thrust is given by:
 
  s 2
T  V V 4T 
1= + + (2)
2T0 W0 W0 T0

where W0 is the induced velocity at the propeller face which is determined by,
s
T0
W0 = (3)
2ρA
Solving for W0
r
.46 ft
W0 = −3 2
= 18 (4)
2 · 2.0381 · 10 · π · .333 s
The use of Wolfram Alpha to plot the equation where y is thrust and x is velocity
is shown in Figure 4.

9
 Figure 4: Thrust Vs. Velocity Method 2

Figure 5: Thrust Vs. Velocity Method 2

3.5 Comparison
Both equations were plotted together in Figure 5 where the yellow line is Method
1, the blue line is Method 2, velocity is on the x axis in ft/s, and thrust is on the
y axis in lbs.

Method 1 and Method 2 yield similar results, however the dip in the curve of
the graph created by Method 2 is a little steeper. The discrepancies in the graphs
are due to the second method being theoretical. When the theoretical equation
was created, assumptions were made which make the data less accurate. There is
human error in Method 1 because data cannot be measured perfectly. There is a
possibility that critical values such as air pressure fluctuated slightly during the
experiment.

10
3.6 Computer Drawing
The experiments were carried out in a subsonic wind tunnel on the campus of
Missouri S&T. The setup is shown in Figure 6. Note the propeller in the middle
of the tunnel, the pitot tube sticking out of the top, the load cell readout in the
bottom left, and the multi-function meter in the bottom right.

Figure 6: Test Setup

3.7 Propeller Selection:

Three different propellers were tested: 8”x6”, 9”x6”, 9”x3.8”. By compiling the
data from method 1 experimentation of the propellers, a graph comparing power
available was created and is shown in Figure 7. Based off of its performance at
low velocities and increased power and thrust compared to the other propellers,the
9”x6” propeller was selected.

11
Figure 7: Thrust of all Propellers

12
4 Step 3: Develop Conceptual Wing and Tail
Design
4.1 Preliminary Design Efforts
The primary goal in selecting wing and tail designs was to maximize stability and
low speed performance. To accomplish this, the aspect ratio was maximized along
with wing surface area. Testing several different configurations, a wingspan of 60
inches and a wing surface area of 4 square feet were selected, allowing for a wing
aspect ratio of 6.25.
For designing the tail surfaces, a percentage of wing surface area was chosen
for the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. For the total area of horizontal surfaces,
a percentage of 30 percent was chosen. For the total area of vertical surfaces, a
percentage of 11 percent was chosen.
For the wing, the AG-35 airfoil was selected for its high maximum coefficient
of lift and small drag bucket. In addition, it was selected for its relatively flat
bottom which would make construction easier.

4.2 Weights
To estimated weights of the wing, horizontal and vertical surfaces as follows:
Wing:
oz
Wwing = 1.40 2 · 4 ft2 = 5.6 oz (.35 lb) (5)
ft
oz 2
Whorizontal = 1.25 2 · 1.2 ft = 1.5 oz (.094 lb) (6)
ft
oz 2
Wvertical = 1.25 2 · .454 ft = .5675 oz (.0.036 lb) (7)
ft
Estimated weights of all aircraft components are as follows:

13
 Figure 8: Weights of all aircraft components
Component Weight (oz.) Weight (lb)
Propeller (9x6) .32 .02
Li-Po Battery 1.64 .1025
Motor .435 .0270
Radio Receiver .725 .0453
Servos .575 .035
Fuselage 2.805 .1753
Wing 5.6 .35
Horizontal Surface 1.5 .094
Vertical Surface .5675 .035
TOTAL EST. WEIGHT 14.1675 .885

4.3 Infinite Wing

Data for the infinite wing is shown in the table below.

Figure 9: Infinite Wing Dimensions

Max Coefficient of Lift .11667

Coefficient of Drag at Zero Lift .013
Angle of Attack at Zero Lift −2 °
Reynold’s Number 128339.015

4.4 Finite Wing

The area for the finite wing was maximized at 4 square feet. By increasing the wing
surface area, the capability for the wing was increased. In addition, by maximizing
the wingspan, the aspect ratio was increased reducing the induced drag.

Figure 10: Finite Wing Dimensions

Wing Surface Area 4 (ft2 )

Wingspan 5 (ft)
Wing Chord .8 (ft)
Wing Loading .221 (lb per ft2 )
Lift Curve Slope .0783
Oswald Efficiency Factor .69

14
4.5 Horizontal Surfaces:
For the total area of horizontal surfaces, a percentage of 30 percent was chosen.

Figure 11: Horizontal Surface Dimensions

Horizontal Tail Surface Area 1.2 (ft2 )
Horizontal Tail Span 1.416 (ft)
Horizontal Tail Chord .85 (ft)
Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio 1.67

4.6 Vertical Surfaces:

For the total area of vertical surfaces, a percentage of 11 percent was chosen.
Figure 12: Vertical Surface Dimensions
Vertical Tail Surface Area .454 (ft2 )
Vertical Tail Span .583 (ft)
Vertical Tail Chord .775 (ft)
Vertical Tail Aspect Ratio .75

4.7 Airfoil Graphs

The AG-25 airfoil was selected for its high coefficient of lift curve and low drag.
The shape is listed in Figure 13 and its lift curve and drag bucket are listed in
Figure 14. The chord length for the implemented AG-25 airfoil is 9.6 inches.

Figure 13: AG-35 Airfoil

15
Figure 14: Eppler Plot for AG-35

16
5 Step 4: Estimate Aircraft Performance and It-
erate Conceptual Wing and Tail Design
5.1 Procedure
To fill out the spreadsheet for performance calculation, the lift slope of the wing
airfoil and the lift slope of the finite wing were calculated by hand. The lift slope
of the finite wing and the horizontal surface were determined by the aspect ratio.
From those calculations, the Oswald efficiency factor for the wing could be solved.
The design goal was an aircraft that possesses the ability to fly at lower speeds
and maintain control. Using a lower stall velocity, along with a larger wing plan
form area allows the aircraft to accomplish this goal. However, by increasing the
area of the wings and control surfaces, the weight of the aircraft also increases.
This can have a detrimental effect on lift. To overcome this increase in weight, a
propeller that could output a high static thrust and larger thrusts at slower speeds
was needed. By looking at the data, the 9” X 6” propeller offered the thrust profile
that met this need.
No major design changes were made from steps 2 and 3. A comprehensive
sheet of the performance data for the 9x6 can be found in appendices.

5.2 Performance Data

Thrust, power, velocity, and distance data were analyzed to estimate performance.
Figure 15 contains data calculated from the Runge-Kutta code and Excel perfor-
mance spreadsheets. The Thrust Available and Thrust Required graphs for the 9”
X 6” are listed on the same graph in Figure 16. The Power Available and Power
Required graphs for the 9” X 6” Propeller are listed on the same graph in Figure
17. The Hodograph for the 9” X 6” is listed in Figure 18.

Figure 15: Runge-Kutta Calculated Performance Data

Max Velocity in Level Flight (ft/s) 36.5

Power Required off Stall Velocity (ft*lbs/s) 0.16409
Power Available off Stall Velocity (ft*lbs/s) 5.23155
Aircraft Rate of Climb for Max Climb Angle (ft/s) 5.5111
Aircraft Velocity for Max Climb Angle (ft/s) 14.7683
Minimum Takeoff Distance of the Aircraft (ft) 35.79
Takeoff Distance with 4oz Payload (ft) 75.61
Distance to Clear 6 foot Obstacle (ft) 51.87

17
 Figure 16: Thrust vs Velocity for the 9” X 6”

Figure 17: Power vs Velocity for the 9” X 6” Propeller

18
Figure 18: Hodograph Diagram

19
6 Step 5: Prepare Initial Weight and Balance
Report, Examine Stability of Wing-Fuselage
Combination and Select Wing Location
6.1 Procedure
The purpose of this section is to decide where to place the wing on the fuselage
that makes the air craft stable. To obtain the best stable location of the wing, the
longitudinal distance of the aircraft’s center of gravity and the neutral point from
the datum line was determined. The neutral point is where the center of gravity
is to make the stability neutral. The position of the neutral point relative to the
center of gravity is important because if the neutral point is in front of the center
of gravity the plane will be unstable. The static margin is the distance between
the center of gravity and the neutral point, resulting in the aircraft having a large
positive static margin.
A previous semesters aircraft was used to get basic measurements to determine
the aircraft longitudinal center of gravity. With those distances, the method of
moments was used to find the center of gravity.
Σf ixed moments + Σmovable moments
Xcg = (8)
Σf ixed weights + Σmovable weights
With the use of the weight and balance sheet, the static margin was calculated
for every reasonable wing leading edge distance to see if the different locations met
the requirements for the aircraft. The optimal location of the wing is when the
wing’s quarter chord matches with the wing’s center of gravity.

Figure 19: Weight and Balance

Weight and Balance V alues

Distance from datum to wing leading edge (in) 11
Distance from datum to wing center of gravity (in) 14.84
Moment of wing about the datum (in-oz) 83.10
Total Moment about datum (in-oz) 190.61
Location of aircraft cg about datum (in) 13.45
Wing 1/4 chord from datum (in) 13.40
Location of Neutral Point (in) 14.55
Static Margin (in) 1.09
Static Margin as percent of wing chord 11%

20
 Figure 20: Center of Gravity for a 4oz Payload Using a Moment Table
CG Location from Datum (in) SM (in) SM as percent of wing chord
9.214 −2.347 −0.244
9.478 −2.131 −0.222
9.742 −1.915 −0.200
10.036 −1.700 −0.177
10.270 −1.434 −0.155
10.535 −1.258 −0.132
10.799 −1.052 −0.110
11.063 −0.837 −0.087
11.327 −0.621 −0.065
11.591 −0.426 −0.042
11.866 −0.189 −0.020
12.120 0.026 0.003
12.364 0.242 0.025
12.645 0.458 0.048
12.913 0.674 0.070
13.177 0.899 0.093
13.441 1.105 0.225
13.705 1.321 0.138
13.969 1.537 0.160
14.234 1.752 0.182
14.498 1.968 0.205
14.762 2.184 0.227
15.005 2.400 0.250

21
7 Step 6: Develop Flight Simulation Model, Make
Design Changes as Needed and Prepare Air-
craft Drawings
7.1 Procedure
The plane was simulated in RealFlight to tune pilot specific dimensions. For
instance, a slight change in polyhedral angle may make the plane feel smoother on
turns to the pilot. With the use of RealFlight Software, different types of wing and
tail surfaces can be estimated and tested to see which design will work best for the
desired performance.Before simulating, the data sheet in Appendix D in the lab
booklet needed to be filled out. The recorded data is found in Table 7.1.1-7.1.6.
Using the recorded data in RealFlight basic aircraft wing loading was tested. The
wing loading was increased to determine the performance flight properties, such
as maximum aircraft velocity in straight level flight, take off distance and velocity,
and distance from takeoff to clear six foot obstacle. The result of this data is
found in Table 7.2.1. To test for better performance, the aspect ratio, length of
center flat section, length and angle of polyhedral sections, areas of horizontal and
vertical surfaces, and percent of elevator and rudder surfaces could be adjusted.

Table 7.1.1: Vertical Tail Dimensions

Vertical Tail V alues

Chord of the vertical tail at the root (in) 9.33
Chord of the vertical tail at the tip (in) 9.33
Leading edge sweep (degrees) 0
Estimated weight of the vertical tail (oz) 0.55
Wing length (in) 7

Table 7.1.2: Rudder Dimensions

Rudder V alues
Length (in) 7
Percent of chord at root (percent) 50
Percent of chord at tip (percent) 50

Table 7.1.3: Horizontal Tail Dimensions

22
 Horizontal Tail V alues
Chord at the root (in) 10.20
Chord at the tip (in) 10.20
Leading edge sweep (degrees) 0
Weight - half the span of the horizontal tail (oz) 0.753
Wing length - half the span of the horizontal tail (in) 8.50

Table: 7.1.4: Elevator Dimensions

Elevator V alues
Length (in) 17
Percent of chord at root (percent) 30
Percent of chord at tip (percent) 30

Table 7.1.5: Main Wing Dimensions

Main Wing V alues

Airfoil name at root) AG35
Airfoil name at tip AG35
Chord at the root (in) 9.60
Chord at tip (in) 9.60
Dihedral (degrees) 15
Incidence at root (degrees) 0
Weight - half the span of the wing (oz) 2.8
Wing length - half the span of the wing (in) 30

Table 7.1.6: Fuselage Dimensions

Fuselage V alues
Weight - with landing gear, tail skid, motor, and propeller (oz) 3.56
Propeller diameter (in) 9
Propeller pitch (in) 6

23
 Table 7.2.1: Data From Flight Simulation

Maxi- Maxi-
Dis- mum mum
Weight Takeoff
Wing Takeoff Takeoff tance to Velocity Velocity
1/2 Dis-
Loading Velocity Velocity clear a Straight Straight
wing tance
(oz/ft2 ) (mph) (ft/sec) 6 foot & Level & Level
(oz) (feet)
obstacle Flight Flight
(mph) (ft/sec)
2.8 2.799 20 15 22 60 25 36.67
23 13 19.1 56
24 13 19.1 69
31 15 22 68
28 14 20.5 66
AVG 25.2 14 20.54 63.8 25 36.67
4.3 3.391 41 16 23.47 87 25 36.67
43 16 23.47 105
47 16 23.47 100
41 16 23.47 92
40 15 22 94
AVG 42.4 15.8 23.17 95.6 25 36.67
5.8 3.983 48 15 22 95 25 36.67
63 17 24.93 111
51 15 22 109
63 17 24.93 119
59 16 23.47 105
AVG 56.8 16 23.47 107.8 25 36.67
7.3 4.575 69 17 24.93 105 24 35.2
84 17 24.93 137
69 16 23.47 119
78 16 23.47 121
66 15 22 121
AVG 73.2 16.2 23.76 120.6 24 35.2
8.8 5.167 91 16 23.47 139 24 35.2
91 16 23.47 144
93 16 23.47 134
AVG 91.7 16 23.47 139 24 35.2

24
 Below are the comments made by the designated pilot about the varying per-
formance parameters.
Changing the Rudder:

• 45 percent of the vertical surface- The plane handles well, flies smooth when
the flying straight. When the plane makes hard turns it does not react well.

• 50 percent of the vertical surface- When turning the plane tries to over
corrects itself to much.

• 55 percent of the vertical surface- During the turns the plane starts to slip,
and jerks back and forth.

Changing the Elevator:

• 20 percent of the horizontal surface- The plane was fairly responsive and did
not over correct itself too much.

• 25 percent of the horizontal surface- The plane is more responsive and did
not over correct itself.

• 30 percent of the horizontal surface- The place can handle more aggressive
turns. Feels more stable in level flight, but slips in turns.

Changing the center of gravity wing location:

§ Original location is 6 inches from leading edge.

• 5 inches from leading edge- The plane moves to much making it easy to flip.

• 6 inches from leading edge- The plane climbs fast at level flight.

• 7 inches from leading edge- When in level flight the plane does not dive to
much. Without touching the controls the plane increases altitude.

• 8 inches from leading edge- When in straight level flight the plane dives.

• 9 inches from leading edge- The plane dives more than most locations. The
plane resists in turns.

Change wing dihedral angle with decided wing center of gravity:

§ The wing center of gravity is fixed at 6 inches

• -10 degrees- The plane is almost impossible to control in turns. The plane
starts diving the as soon as the plane rolls.

25
 • -5 degrees- The plane still dives hard in turns, but is better than -10 degrees.
• 0 degrees- The plane does not roll, just yaws.
• 5 degrees- This angel is better than the previous ones, but the plane is still
difficult to control.
• 10 degrees- There is less slip when rolling.
Change length of center flat section and polyhedral section:
§ The Polyhedral is fixed at 15 degrees
• 3 inches flat section/ 27 inches polyhedral section- The plane flew jittery and
over responsive trying to over correct itself.
• 6 inches flat section/ 24 inches polyhedral section- The plane was less over
corrective, but was prone to nose dive.
• 9 inches flat section/ 21 inches polyhedral section- When the plane increased
in altitude the stability decreased. There was difficulty trying to pitch the
nose up. The plane did well rolling.
• 12 inches flat section/ 18 inches polyhedral section- The plane rolled with
ease.
Change angle of polyhedral with decided length of flat center section
and polyhedral section:
§ The length of the flat section is 12 inches and the polyhedral length is 18
inches.
• 20 degrees- The plane starts to dive in turns.
• 25 degrees- The plane was more responsive, and did not try to over correct
itself as much.
From adjusting the different aspects of the aircraft surfaces, a conclusion was
made for the final aircraft design.
• Rudder percentage: 45 percent
• Elevator percentage: 25 percent
• Location of wing center of gravity: 6 inches
• Length of flat section of the wing: 12 inches
• Length of polyhedral section of the wing: 18 inches
• Angle of polyhedral section of the wing: 25 degrees

26
8 Step 7: Construct Aircraft Wing & Empen-
nage and Complete the Fuselage
The construction of the wing was separated into three steps. The first step con-
sisted of preparing templates to be used in the construction of the wing. A CAD
drawing of the wing sections was created to serve as an assembly blueprint for step
2. The wing center drawing is in Figure 24. Another CAD drawing of the AG-35
airfoil was created and glued onto thin strips of balsa wood and then cut using a
band saw. These cut sections served as the ribs for the wing.
The second step involved constructing and assembling the wing frame. The
wing frame was assembled in three parts: the two polyhedral sections and the
center section. The method of construction was the same for all three. Using
the assembly blueprint from step 1, the ribs were aligned with the trailing edge
and glued together using two aluminium blocks to hold the ribs steady. Then,
stiffeners were added to the ribs to ensure they did not separate from the trailing
edge. After this, the leading edge was glued onto the ribs. After the polyhedral
sections and the center section were constructed, they were glued together with
thick plywood cut to the selected polyhedral angle. Shims were added to ensure a
good connection between the sections. Finally, the wing was sanded down.
The third and final part involved covering the wing and heat shrinking the
covering. The covering was carefully applied and glued onto the wing using a
heating iron. After the covering was applied, a heat gun was used to shrink the
fabric. Finally, the wing was checked for warping and was corrected by manually
by bending the wing and using the heat gun to shrink the fabric.
After construction, the wing was balanced by adding metal washers to the end
of the wing. This completed the construction of the wing.
Other computer animated drawings of the rudder, vertical stabilizer and hori-
zontal surface are added below in figure 21, 22, and 23.

27
 Figure 21: Rudder

Figure 22: Vertical Stabilizer

28
Figure 23: Horizontal Stabilizer

Figure 24: Wing Center

29
9 Step 8: Conduct Wind Tunnel Drag Testing
of Motor-Fuselage Assembly and Recalculate
Aircraft Performance
To setup the experiment, the constructed fuselage was put inside the test section
of an 18” X 18” subsonic wind tunnel. In addition, a pitot-tube was placed inside
the test section to measure the pressure of the wind tunnel. A drawing of the test
section in Figure 26.
Three people were needed to perform the experiment. One person controlled
airflow of the wind tunnel, one person recorded data from a load cell into Excel,
and one person measured wind tunnel velocity. In Figure 26 the load cell readout
is at the bottom and the Flow Kinetics Multi-Function Meter is at the top next
to the pitot-probe tube.
First, the person controlling the wind tunnel increased the wind tunnel velocity
in increments of 5 feet/second up to 50 feet/second. Second, the person measuring
wind tunnel velocity called out velocities, informing the person controlling the wind
tunnel whether to increase or decrease the speed. Finally, the person recording
data entered the drag data into an excel spreadsheet.
After collecting all the data the results were plotted in Excel and can be seen
below in Figure 25.

30
 Figure 25: Fuselage Tail Drag

Equation (9) represents the regression curve for the total fuselage and tail drag
as a function of velocity.

DragF/T = 0.00017V 2 − 0.00038V + 0.01154 (9)

The data for the experiment was collected and entered into table 8.1 on the next
page. The last column in the chart labeled Drag of Fuselage Regression equation
(lbs) is the calculated thrust using equation (9) above. It is easy to compare the
predicted thrust based on the regression equation with the actual measured tunnel
thrust and net thrust and see that the values are very close. This confirms the
validity of the equation and promotes confidence in its use to recalculate some
performance characteristics.

31
 Table 8.1: Fuselage and Tail Drag

Figure 26: Wind Tunnel Drag Testing

32
10 Step 9: Conduct Final Flight Testing and An-
alyze Flight Test
Before the aircraft was tested, the final location of the leading edge with respect to
the datum, location of the neutral point with respect to the datum, static margin
(as percent of wing chord), and weight of the aircraft were measured with and
without a 4 oz. payload. The calculated results are listed in Figure 27. The best
placement of the wing differed from the spreadsheet to the 2-finger test, and in
the end, the best 2-finger test placement of the wing is what the group went with.

Figure 27: Final Aircraft Dimensions

Distance
from Actual Static
datum to Location Margin as
Weight
wing of Neutral % of wing
leading Point Chord
edge
Nominal 11.5 15.09 24 15.23
With 4 oz
10.5 14.15 21 19.23
Payload

Flight testing was conducted inside the Missouri S&T Gale-Bullman Athletics
Building in the Upper Gym. The aircraft was flown by Jim, the lab instructor
for the AE2780 course. The primary differences between the predicted and actual
were the distance to take off. The aircraft consistently achieved flight well before
the predicted distance. This could be due to letting the motor to achieve full power
before release or more likely, having an angle of attack during ground roll higher
than was used for calculating the estimated distances.
In addition, the plane was slightly more maneuverable than expected. This
could be due to the experience of the pilot. The large size of the control surfaces
could have also influenced this in ways not accounted for in initial estimates of
maneuverability. The pilot commented favorably on the performance and stability
of the aircraft, as well as the ease in which it landed. Overall, the pilot was very
pleased with the aircraft with no suggestions as to improvements being offered.
The pilot mentioned, ”It’s beautiful.”
The takeoff distance for the base aircraft is described in Table 9.1, the takeoff
distance for the aircraft with a 4 ounce payload is given in Table 9.2, the distance
to clear a 6 foot obstacle is given in Table 9.3, and the maximum velocity in
straight and level flight is given in Table 9.4.

33
 Table 9.1: Takeoff Distance for Base Aircraft
Test Distance
Number (ft)
1 22.5
2 20
3 22
4 21
AV G 21.375

Table 9.2: Takeoff Distance for Base Aircraft+4 Ounce Weight

Test Distance
Number (ft)
1 33
2 30.5
3 30
AV G 31.1667

Table 9.3: Takeoff Distance for Base Aircraft+4 Ounce Weight

Test Distance
Number (ft)
1 42
AV G 42

Table 9.4: Distance to Clear a 6’ obstacle

Time A-B Velocity Time B-A Velocity
(sec) A-B (ft/s) (sec) B-A (ft/s)
1.54 32.4675 1.85 27.027
1.60 31.25 1.64 30.4878
2.01 24.8756 1.84 26.8817
1.07 46.729 1.83 27.3224
1.73 28.9017 1.61 31.0559
1.66 30.1205 1.61 31.0559
1.96 25.5012
AV G 30.2928

34
Figure 28: Final Fuselage Side View

Figure 29: Final Fuselage Top View

35
A Equations
s
2·w
Vstall = (10)
p · s · CLmax
2·w
CLmax = (11)
p · s · v2
p · Vcruise · s
Reynolds Number = (12)
µ

µ = 3.7373 · 10−7 slug

ft·s

AR
KAR<4 = 1 + (1.87 − .00233ALE ) · (13)
100
1
KAR>4 = 1 + ((9.2 − 2.3 · ALE ) − (.22 − .153 · ALE ) · AR) · (14)
100
√
B= 1 − M2 (15)
 
AR  2·π
CLα = · q  (16)
K A·R2 ·B tan2 (Ac/2 )
2+ K2
· (1 + B2
+ 4)
a0
a= 57.3·a0 (17)
1 + ( π·e·AR )
CL2
CDw = CD0 + (18)
π · e · AR
W
DW = L
(19)
D

DF/T = 0.00016 · V 2 − 0.0001 · V (20)

excess power
R/C = (21)
weight
lt · St at ∂
hn = hacwb + ( ) · · (1 − ) (22)
c·S a ∂α

SM = (hn − h) (23)

36
A Performance Data for 9”x6”
Aircraft Wing
Velocity Wing Drag Fuselage
Coefficient Coefficient Wing L/D
(ft/s) (lb) Drag (lb)
of lift of Drag
5 7.773 4.418 1.759 0.510 0.004
6 5.398 2.131 2.533 0.354 0.005
7 3.966 1.151 3.445 0.260 0.007
8 3.036 0.675 4.496 0.200 0.009
9 2.399 0.422 5.684 0.158 0.012
10 1.943 0.277 7.005 0.128 0.015
11 1.606 0.190 8.457 0.106 0.018
12 1.349 0.134 10.035 0.089 0.022
13 1.150 0.098 11.733 0.076 0.026
14 0.991 0.073 13.543 0.066 0.030
15 0.864 0.056 15.456 0.058 0.035
16 0.759 0.043 17.461 0.051 0.039
17 0.672 0.034 19.545 0.046 0.045
18 0.538 0.028 21.694 0.041 0.050
19 0.486 0.023 23.890 0.038 0.056
20 0.441 0.019 26.114 0.034 0.062
21 0.441 0.016 28.347 0.032 0.068
22 0.401 0.013 30.569 0.029 0.075
23 0.367 0.011 32.755 0.027 0.082
24 0.337 0.010 34.886 0.026 0.090
25 0.311 0.008 36.939 0.024 0.098
26 0.287 0.007 38.894 0.023 0.106
27 0.267 0.007 40.731 0.022 0.114
28 0.248 0.006 42.433 0.021 0.123
29 0.231 0.005 43.986 0.020 0.132
30 0.216 0.005 45.318 0.020 0.141
31 0.202 0.004 46.601 0.019 0.151
32 0.190 0.004 47.648 0.019 0.161
33 0.178 0.004 48.519 0.018 0.171
34 0.168 0.003 49.213 0.018 0.182
35 0.178 0.003 49.733 0.018 0.193
36 0.178 0.003 50.087 0.018 0.204
37 0.178 0.003 50.282 0.018 0.215
38 0.178 0.003 50.327 0.018 0.227
39 0.178 0.003 50.234 0.018 0.239

37
 40 0.178 0.002 50.014 0.018 0.252
41 0.178 0.002 49.678 0.018 0.265
42 0.178 0.002 49.241 0.018 0.278
43 0.178 0.002 48.712 0.018 0.292
44 0.178 0.002 48.105 0.019 0.305
45 0.178 0.002 47.430 0.019 0.320
46 0.178 0.002 46.648 0.019 0.334
47 0.178 0.002 45.918 0.020 0.349
48 0.178 0.002 45.101 0.020 0.364
49 0.178 0.002 44.253 0.020 0.379
50 0.178 0.002 43.382 0.021 0.395

Thrust Thrust Power Power Rate of Horizontal

Required Available Required Available Climb Velocity
(lb) (lb) (ft-lb/s) (ft-lb/s) (ft/s) (ft/s)
0.513 0.504 0.504 2.561 −0.051 5.000
0.359 0.497 2.156 2.982 0.921 5.929
0.267 0.490 1.872 3.428 1.734 6.782
0.209 0.482 1.672 3.859 2.439 7.619
0.170 0.475 1.529 4.275 3.061 8.464
0.143 0.467 1.430 4.674 3.616 9.323
0.124 0.460 1.368 5.5057 4.113 10.202
0.111 0.452 1.335 5.424 4.559 11.100
0.102 0.444 1.329 5.774 4.956 12.018
0.096 0.436 1.347 6.107 5.307 12.955
0.093 0.428 1.388 6.422 5.612 13.911
0.091 0.420 1.452 6.720 5.873 14.833
0.090 0.412 1.537 7.000 6.090 15.872
0.091 0.403 1.645 7.261 6.261 16.876
0.093 0.395 1.775 7.504 6.387 17.894
0.096 0.386 1.927 7.728 6.467 18.926
0.100 0.378 2.102 7.933 6.500 19.969
0.105 0.369 2.301 8.118 6.485 21.022
0.110 0.360 2.524 8.283 6.421 22.085
0.115 0.351 2.771 8.429 6.307 23.156
0.122 0.342 3.045 8.554 6.142 24.234
0.129 0.333 3.344 8.658 5.924 25.316
0.136 0.324 3.671 8.741 5.652 26.402
0.144 0.314 4.026 8.803 5.326 27.489
0.152 0.305 4.410 8.844 4.943 28.576

38
 0.161 0.295 4.823 8.862 4.503 29.660
0.170 0.286 5.267 8.858 4.003 30.740
0.179 0.276 5.743 8.832 3.444 31.814
0.189 0.266 6.251 8.783 2.823 32.879
0.200 0.256 6.793 8.711 2.138 33.933
0.211 0.246 7.369 8.615 1.390 34.972
0.222 0.236 7.980 8.496 0.575 35.995
0.233 0.226 8.628 8.353 −0.306 36.999
0.245 0.215 9.312 8.185 −1.257 37.979
0.257 0.205 10.035 7.993 −2.277 38.933
0.270 0.194 10.797 7.776 −3.368 39.858
0.283 0.184 11.600 7.534 −4.533 40.749
0.296 0.173 12.443 7.266 −5.771 41.602
0.310 0.162 13.328 6.972 −7.085 42.412
0.324 0.151 14.256 6.653 −8.477 43.176
0.338 0.140 15.229 6.307 −9.946 43.887
0.353 0.129 16.246 5.934 −11.496 44.540
0.368 0.118 17.309 5.534 −13.127 45.130
0.384 0.106 18.419 5.107 −14.840 45.648
0.400 0.095 19.577 4.653 −16.638 246.089
0.416 0.083 20.784 4.170 −18.522 46.443

A MATLAB Code For Takeoff Distance

%chord length of the wing

cw=0.8; %(ft)

%wingspan
b=5; %(ft)

%wing planform area

s=b*cw; %(ft^2)

%Aspect ratio
AR=(b^2)/(s);

%Lift slope of the finite wing (1/degrees)

a_0=0.0784;

39
%Max coefficent of lift
cl_max=1.2;

%span efficiency factor

e=0.69;

%height of the wings above the ground

h=0.5; %(ft)

%free stream density

rho=0.0023; %(slugs/ft^3)

%Obstacle height for clearance (ft)

ob=6;

%gravitaional constant
g=32.2; %(ft/s^2)

%nominal weight of the aircraft

W=14.1675/16; %(lbs)

%Wing parasite drag coefficent

cd_0=0.012;

%angle where cl is 0
alpha_0=-2; %(degrees)

%ground roll angle

alpha_g=1.5; %(degrees)

%coefficent of lift (actual)

cl=a_0*(alpha_g-alpha_0);

%coeffiecnt of rolling friction

mu_r=0.02;

%ground roll parameter

phi=(16*h/b)^2/(1+(16*h/b)^2);

%coefficent for fusalage drag equation

d0=-0.0001;
d1=0.00016;

40
%coefficent of drag of the wing
Cd_w= cd_0+ phi*((cl^2)/(3.14*e*AR));

%Total drag equation as a function of velocity

D=@(v) (0.5*rho*(v^2)*s*Cd_w)+ d0*(v)+d1*(v^2);

%coefficents for thrust equation

c0=0.485;
c1=-0.0053;
c2=-0.00003;

%Thrust available as a function of velocity

T=@(v) c0+c1*(v)+c2*(v^2); %(lbf)

%Lift as a function of velocity

L=@(v) 0.5*rho*(v^2)*s*cl; %(lbf)

%Pt.1 of program. Estimating distance, velocity, and time to achieve

flight

%Initial position, velocity, and time

x0=0;
v0=0;
t0=0;
Da=0;
Ta_0=0.46; %static thrust = max thrust
i=1;
x(1)=x0;
v(1)=v0;
t(1)=t0;
Da(1)=Da;
Ta(1)=Ta_0;
max_iterations=5000;
dt=0.005; %differential time change

%while loop for the rk4

while (L(v(i))<W && i<max_iterations)

k1=(g/W)*(T(v(i))-D(v(i))-mu_r*(W-L(v(i))));
k2=(g/W)*(T(v(i)+0.5*k1*dt)-D(v(i)+0.5*k1*dt)-mu_r*(W-L(v(i)+0.5*k1*dt)));
k3=(g/W)*(T(v(i)+0.5*k2*dt)-D(v(i)+0.5*k2*dt)-mu_r*(W-L(v(i)+0.5*k2*dt)));
k4=(g/W)*(T(v(i)+k3*dt)-D(v(i)+k3*dt)-mu_r*(W-L(v(i)+k3*dt)));
t(i+1)= t(i)+dt;

41
 v(i+1)= v(i)+(1/6)*(k1+2*k2+2*k3+k4)*(dt);
x(i+1)= x(i)+(v(i)*dt)+(0.5*k1*(dt^2));
Da(i+1)=D(v(i));
Ta(i+1)=T(v(i));
i=(i+1);
end

%Deliverables for pt.1

figure(1);
plot(t,x)
title(’Position vs Time’)
xlabel(’Time (s)’)
ylabel(’Position (ft)’)

figure(2);
plot(t,v)
title(’Velocity vs Time’)
xlabel(’Time (s)’)
ylabel(’Velocity (ft/s)’)

figure(3);
plot(x,Da,x,Ta)
title(’Drag and Thrust vs Position’)
xlabel(’Position (ft)’)
ylabel(’Force (lbf)’)
legend(’Drag’,’Thrust’)

%Pt 2 of program. using aircraft performance to estimate thrust, power,

and
%maximum rate of climb angle

%cl after ground roll

cl_var =@(v) (2*W)/(rho*v^2*s);

%cd after ground roll

cd_var= @(v) cd_0 + ((cl_var(v))^2)/(3.14*e*AR);

%Thrust Required for unaccelerated flight

TR =@(v) 0.5*rho*(v^2)*s*(cd_var(v));

%Power required for unaccelerated flight

PR =@(v) TR(v)*v;

42
%Power available for unaccelerated flight
P =@(v) T(v)*v;

%Stall velocity
v_stall=12.6653;

%Rate of climb (ft/s)

RoC = @(v) (P(v)-PR(v))/W;

%conditions for loop

i=1;
v(1)=v_stall;
Thrust_avail(1)=0.41306; %plug in stall velocity into thrust available
eq above
Thrust_req(1)=0.012956; %Plug in stall velocity to the drag equation
Power_avail(1)=5.23155; %Thrust_avail*v_stall
Power_req(1)=0.16409; %Thrust_req*v_stall
Rate_of_climb(1)=5.7229; %Plug values into RoC eq above
dv=0.001;

while(TR(v(i))<T(v(i)))
Thrust_avail(i+1)=T(v(i));
Thrust_req(i+1)=TR(v(i));
Thrust_diff1= T(v(i))-TR(v(i));
Thrust_diff2=Thrust_avail(i)-Thrust_req(i);
Power_avail(i+1)=P(v(i));
Power_req(i+1)=PR(v(i));
Rate_of_climb(i+1)=RoC(v(i));
v(i+1)=v(i)+dv;
i=i+1;

if(Thrust_diff2<Thrust_diff1)
velocity_theta_max=v(i-1); %horizontal velocity at max climb
angle
RoC_theta_max=RoC(v(i-1)); %Rate of climb at max climb angle
end

end

43
 theta_max=atan(RoC_theta_max/velocity_theta_max); %max climb angle
(radians)
x_air=(ob)/tan(theta_max); %Horizontal distance covered by the aircraft
while in climb
x_total=x+x_air; %Total Horizontal distance to clear 6ft obstacle

%Deliverables for pt.2 (graphs)

figure(4);
plot(v,Thrust_avail,v,Thrust_req)
title(’Thrust available and required vs Velocity’)
xlabel(’Velocity (ft/s)’)
ylabel(’Thrust (lbf)’)
legend(’available’,’required’)

figure(5);
plot(v,Power_avail,v,Power_req)
title(’Power available and required vs Velocity’)
xlabel(’Velocity (ft/s)’)
ylabel(’Power (lb*ft/s’)
legend(’available’,’required’)

figure(6);
plot(v,Rate_of_climb)
title(’Hodograph Diagram’)
xlabel(’Horizontal velocity (ft/s)’)
ylabel(’Rate of climb (ft/s)’)

44

View publication stats